6 comments:

Donald Trump is a spoiler, he's a worthy rabble rouser but not a worthy candidate. He was for a single payer healthcare system long before there was an Obamacare, he's come out for a tax on wealth (not income, not purchases - wealth. A tax on everything you own: savings, stocks, bonds, property, pension...) and most damning of all is his 20% tariff on all imports. A short term tariff on steel imports in 2002 actually harmed the production of steel in the United States, increased costs to users, increased unemployment and damaged the economy over all. Can you imagine what would happen with a 20% tariff on all imports?

How, if at all, do you relate current events to eschatology? Where do you think we are in the countdown? Does your view of the near-future affect your view of the GOP? Are you taking a long-range view, or do you think the world will end before the year 2100 (give or take)?

Your claim that Republicans "push the Democrats agenda" has been refuted many times, like here. And the article by Gina Loudon that you've cited is horrible.

For example, she writes:

"This is not the time to ask the candidates to swear allegiance to Karl Rove and Reince Priebus. Conservatives tend to have short memories. They forgive too easily, and sometimes that gets in the way of their better sense."

What sort of "short memory" do you need to have to forget Trump's liberal positions over the years, including just recently? Rove and Priebus aren't running for president, but both men are more conservative and more trustworthy than Trump, among other advantages they have over him. You'll need to explain why Trump supposedly is not only better than Rove and Priebus, but also better than Cruz, Rubio, Fiorina, Walker, and every other candidate running against him.

She continues:

"Conservatives forget who the real enemy of a 2016 Republican victory is: the GOP elite."

No, the real enemy is the majority of American voters, who identify themselves as moderate or liberal rather than conservative, many of whom are low-information voters. It's far easier to win a sufficient percentage of their vote with somebody like Rubio or Walker than it is with somebody like Trump. The polling data prove it, and so does a lot of other evidence. Where's your counterargument?

She goes on:

"Before Trump was in the race, illegal immigration was off the table for the GOP candidates."

That's ludicrous. The 2012 Republican candidates were fewer and less conservative than the 2016 candidates, and illegal immigration repeatedly came up prominently during the 2012 campaign. You think people like Cruz and Santorum would have avoided illegal immigration altogether if Trump weren't running? Candidates like Rubio and Bush never would have been asked about it? It was already being discussed before Trump got in.

"Trump made capitalism cool again! Not just capitalism, but raw, thorny, John Wayne/Clint Eastwood don't-even-think-about-it capitalism is cool again."

Like when he spoke so highly of a single-payer healthcare system in the debate last week?

She tells us:

"Whether or not The Donald is elected, conservatives can not only fight to win (finally!)"

As if somebody like Walker, who beat the Democrats and a nationwide campaign against him in a blue state three times, doesn't have the ability or will to fight to win. As if the Republicans who took over the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, a majority of state legislatures and governorships in recent years, etc. don't have the ability or will to fight to win.

What about Trump's previous failed presidential efforts? What about his willingness to keep changing his positions and party affiliation? That kind of behavior makes you think he'll be a "conservative" who's "fighting to win"?

Alan, did voting for Donald Trump ever even cross your mind, say, six months ago? If somebody had asked you, "Who should be the standard bearer for conservatism?", would Donald Trump have come to mind?